August 22, 2000
New Study Links Biotech Corn to Butterfly Deaths
By CAROL KAESUK YOON
New York Times

Ever since scientists reported last year that pollen from genetically
engineered corn could kill monarch butterfly caterpillars in the
laboratory, scientists, industry representatives and activists opposed to
genetic engineering have been battling over one central question: Are these
butterflies being harmed by the millions of acres of biotech corn being
planted across the country?
Now, in the first study published on the subject since the debate began,
scientists from Iowa State University say plants growing in and near the
corn fields are being dusted with enough toxic pollen to kill monarch
caterpillars that feed on them. The genetically modified corn produces the
insecticide Bt in its tissues, including its windblown pollen.
Scientists say it is the first published data showing the potential for
genetically engineered pollen in the wild to harm monarchs, but leaves open
the crucial question of what impact the corn actually has on the butterfly
population. Critics of the original study, published by researchers at
Cornell University, said caterpillars in the study could have died because
they were fed levels of toxic pollen that were much higher than those found
in nature.
"This is telling us that with naturally deposited pollen there's a good
probability you'll get some mortality," said Dr. John Obrycki, who along
with Laura Hansen wrote the article published Saturday in the journal
Oecologia.
In their study, the researchers gathered leaves from plants growing in and
around corn fields and onto which pollen had blown. The leaves were then
fed to caterpillars in the laboratory. Twenty percent of the caterpillars
eating leaves bearing genetically engineered pollen died, while all
caterpillars eating leaves with regular corn pollen survived.
"This is a big deal," said Dr. John Losey, one of the authors on the
original Cornell study.
"It's an important next step."
But the new study seems to have only fueled the battle for public opinion
inspired by the monarch butterfly, which has become a symbol to many of
fragile nature threatened by genetic engineering.
"This study should dispel any doubts about whether or not the effect
observed in the Cornell study is a real one in the field," said Dr. Rebecca
Goldburg, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that has
been critical of the biotechnology industry and its regulators. "The
Environmental Protection Agency should take some steps to ensure that
butterflies in this coming planting season are protected."
Industry representatives say the new study did not accurately reflect what
is happening in nature.
"I don't see how this can be construed as a field study," said Lisa Dry,
spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, referring to the
fact that leaves from the field were brought back to the lab to be fed to
caterpillars. Ms. Dry said she believed that rain, wind and sun would
degrade the pollen to the point that caterpillars' chances of contacting
toxic pollen in nature was "remote." Ms. Dry said she knew of 20 other
studies that would disagree with the new research, though none had yet been
published.
"We're confident that the Bt has minimal, if any, impact," she added.
Scientists interviewed agreed that the ultimate effect on monarchs was
still uncertain.
So far the Environmental Protection Agency has requested but not required
farmers to alter plantings to reduce the flow of genetically engineered
pollen out of their fields.
The agency has announced that the registrations that allow the widespread
planting of Bt corn would be extended until September 2001.

Fair Use Notice: The material
on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes.
It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being
made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific,
environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest
in using the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute
legal or technical advice.